Morality of Animal testing position paper

Fayemmj

paperdraft2.pdf

Home >English homework help >Morality of Animal testing position paper

The Morality of Animal Testing

Animals are often used in many medical institutions as the subjects of research. The

Animals are often test subjects for testing potential new treatments for human diseases or to gain

new knowledge about human diseases (Liebsch 842). This is because animals share some genetic

and physiological similarities with human beings. Therefore, tests on them can be helpful for the

development of medical science. Animal testing is a highly debated subject, with people from

both sides offering their passionate opinion on why this activity is morally right or wrong. There

have been strong arguments from both sides of this issue with some viewing animal testing as a

morally incorrect act, while others arguing that it is right.

The scientific community is strongly in favor of animal testing. In the scientific world,

human life is viewed as superior to that of the other animals, and this argument generally

justified the act of animal testing (Monamy 16). While the scientists try as hard as possible to

reduce the suffering on the animals, they argue that they would rather see the animals suffering

in place of the humans. There are many medical breakthroughs that have been achieved as a

result of animal testing. Therefore, the proponents of animal testing argue that the end result is

what really matters (Monamy 17). Animal testing has enabled the saving of a lot of human lives,

and that alone makes it morally right. Additionally, the supporters of animal testing have argue

that animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as the human beings, hence they are

unable to possess full independence (Oliver 271). It is not possible for an animal to choose what

they want in life or have goals that they want to achieve before their life ends. Therefore, testing

them for the sake of saving human life is not preventing them from achieving something that

they would have wanted to achieve before death.

In spite of the arguments for animal testing, I still believe that it is not morally right to

perform invasive experiments on animals in a bid to prevent sickness and find cures for human

diseases. Even though the cognitive features of the animals are not as developed as that of the

human beings, they still have physical feelings, hence they suffer when these experiments are

done (Würbel 120). There are many people who argue against animal testing who have given

some reasonable arguments to support this side of the argument. One of the major arguments

against animal testing is the fact that animals do not have the ability to consent to the procedures

done on them (Oliver 271). The tests are forced on them, since there is no way they could

communicate whether they agree to the procedures or not. The supporters of animal rights do not

argue that animals should have the same rights as human beings. Their argument is that other

animals should be treated with the same kind of respect that the human beings are getting.

Human beings should not feel like they have the right to decide the fate of the animals by

deciding when to kill them just so they can gain something that is solely for their own benefit.

The discomfort, pain, and suffering that the animals have to undergo during the

experiment procedures is one of the major ethical issues that has made the supporters of animal

rights to fight against animal testing. In some tests, especially the invasive ones, the animals have

to go through a lot of pain due to the operation and the effects of the chemicals that are

administered into their bodies. The researchers have argued that they try as hard as possible to

reduce the suffering. Techniques like the use of an anesthetic have been used to minimize the

suffering on the animals. However, in some cases, the use of anesthesia is not an option because

it can interfere with the drugs that are being tested (De Waal 65). In such cases, the animals have

to undergo all the pain until the procedure is completed.

Another ethical concern is the use of animals for cosmetic testing. In most countries the

use of animals for testing of cosmetic products is legal. A lot of people have seen this as an

unethical act because it is a procedure that puts the animals through suffering and even the risk

of death not to save lives but just so human beings can improve their appearance (Festing &

Wilkinson 532). This is an act of cruelty because it clearly shows the disregard that human

beings have for other animals. Animal testing for cosmetic products were banned in Europe in

2009 since it is believed to be cruel and outrageous.

There are some middle-ground arguments that suggest that animal testing can be done in

a manner that is not unethical. For instance, the people on the middle of the argument suggest

that scientists can try to use the less complex organisms to perform their experiments. For

instance, organisms such as fruit flies and bacteria may be preferred as subjects of experiments

compared to the mammals (Rollin 121). Other middle-ground arguments suggest that animal

experiments would be morally right if the scientists were careful with animals like they are with

the human beings. They should make sure that there is already extensive research and gathered

data on the drugs that are being tested on the animals before they are administered to their

bodies. Also, the drugs should have a high probability of not harming the animal like in the case

of experiments on human subjects (Rollin 122). However, I believe that the best way to deal with

this issue is exploring the alternatives to animal testing that would help to gain the medical

information required without affecting the health and lives of the animals.

Since research on animals is unethical and not morally right, this does not imply that

scientists should discontinue performing experiments that could potentially save human lives.

There are other alternative testing methods that have been developed by scientists to ensure that

results of testing can be accurate without harming the animal. Vitro testing is an example of an

alternative that has been developed to help reduce the rate of animal abuse in medical science.

Vitro testing involves the development of organs-on-chip that have the same cell structure as that

of the human beings and also have an organ anatomy that resembles that of the human beings

(Gao 24). Tests can also be conducted through computer modeling techniques where the

scientists develop computer simulations of the human biology that imitate the process of disease

formation in the human body. These computer models have the ability to accurately predict how

certain drugs will react with the antibody that causes the disease. Therefore, they can replace

animal testing as a method of testing new drugs. Research can also be done with human

volunteers as opposed to the animals that have no way on consenting to the procedures. Another

method is called micro-dosing, that is used to test the risk factors associated with new drugs in

order to determine whether they would be harmful to the human beings. If a drug is found to be

safe, its effectiveness can be tested on human beings who volunteer to have their bodies as the

subjects of experiments.

Scientists hope that in a certain point of time they would switch to alternative methods

only, rather than testing on animals. If they can find an assured correlation between the results

they get from a lab dish and the results they get using animals such as monkeys, the next step

would be to get rid of animal testing altogether (Vice News, 00:10:43-00:11:03).

1.) Focus on introducing the context, credibility, and perspective of sources. Let the reader know where info comes from, and who is bringing forward these claims. Don't default toward hiding claims through a factual tone, especially when you're discussing a debate. While the paper mentions groups of people based on their position, make sure to introduce specific authors as a representative of that group, and mention where they make these claims. 2.) You'll also want to bring forward some more specificity to the paper. It's doing well to structure the overall argument, now go through and add more precise detail from the sources, adding complexity to their claims, and using specific evidence. This will only help to bolster the paper's credibility, and also help develop its transparency.

3.) Highlight whenever you speak and when the researcher is speaking

4.) Add details to every argument, preferably scientific ones and more examples of real people’s experiences. 5.) Introduce the sources and the author's perspective and compare them together 6.) Use 2 more scholarly/academic sources in the paper, use them to write the examples and arguments.

Works Cited

De Waal, Frans. Primates and philosophers: How morality evolved. Princeton University

Press, 2009.

Festing, Simon, and Robin Wilkinson. "The ethics of animal research." EMBO reports

8.6 (2007): 526-530.

Gao, Fuping, et al. "Pullulan acetate coated magnetite nanoparticles for hyper-thermia:

preparation, characterization and in vitro experiments." Nano Research 3.1 (2010): 23-31.

Liebsch, Manfred, et al. "Alternatives to animal testing: current status and future

perspectives." (2011): 841-858.

Monamy, Vaughan. Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge

University Press, 2009.

Oliver, Kelly. "Animal ethics: Toward an ethics of responsiveness." Research in

Phenomenology 40.2 (2010): 267-280.

Rollin, Bernard E. "Animal research: a moral science." EMBO reports 8.6 (2007):

521-525.

Würbel, Hanno. "Ethology applied to animal ethics." Applied animal behaviour science

118.3 (2009): 118-127.

Vice News. “Experimenting on Animals: Inside The Monkey Lab.”, Youtube, uploaded

by VICE News, 7 July 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsPo53PCls .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocsPo53PCls

Work Consulted

Keen, William Williams. Animal Experimentation and Medical Progress. Houghton

Mifflin Company. 1914.

Louwe, Mieke. Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?.

Procon.org. Last updated on 4/11/2017 11:03:58 AM PST. http://animal-testing.procon.org.

Rudacille, Deborah. “The scalpel and the butterfly : the war between animal research and

animal protection”. New York : Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 2000.